SEPilot wrote:Boeing really wanted to do a clean sheet design instead of doing the MAX, but their customers were not willing to wait for it. And that is the other problem; not only is the cost of a clean sheet design prohibitive, but so is the time required. Airlines already have to wait at least a year, and usually more, between when they order a new aircraft and when it gets delivered. The time from launch to first delivery of a new type can now be expected to exceed a decade. While this can be managed for a new type, it cannot be as a replacement for the workhorse type of almost all airlines, the single aisle short range airliner. such possibilities on the horizon.
Why can't airline's wait?
Aircraft types don't fly forever and they have to be replaced. What are they going to do when Boeing replaces the 737?
Switch to A320s which would cost billions and whilst going through the transition process Boeings replacement aircraft would have entered service.
This is the miscalculation that Boeing made. All those years ago.
SEPilot wrote: The third is that Boeing does what they have done twice before in their history and bet the company on designing and building a new airframe. In the present climate I do not expect them to do that
Honestly I don't think that they have a choice.
The 737 MAX is a passable aircraft but it is not a futureproof one. Boeing will either have to replace it or ultimately they'll exit the single aisle market entirely.
SEPilot wrote:One reason that I do not expect them to make that gamble is that while Airbus has an almost insurmountable advantage in the narrowbody segment, Boeing has almost the same advantage in widebodies. The 787 clearly was the right plane for Boeing to build; it has sold and is continuing to sell like hotcakes. The A350, for whatever reason, is not selling well at all in comparison. The A330neo does not appear to be competitive; there is no area that I am aware of where it outperforms the 787. Airbus developed it at a time when Boeing was having massive problems meeting demand for the 787 and Airbus saw a window of opportunity, but that window closed before they could get it certified and into production. Now it sells mainly to airlines who simply do not want the 787, either because they do not want to retrain their personnel, or they do not want to buy from Boeing. But it is never because the A330neo will do the job better or cheaper.
Agree with you here entirely, the 787 has sold extremely welll and it's replacement market is setting up to be more 787s be they existing generation or a re-engine.
Airbus will need a clean sheet to beat it.
The time for Airbus to do that is now in my opinion. Have an aircraft ready for when the 787s replacement market really gets going.
However if Airbus don't move then Boeing don't really have to do much the dreamliner and they'll continue to have dominance in this segment.
Revelation wrote:Boeing CEO David Calhoun's comments reported by Leeham make a lot of things being discussed in this thread clearer:
- Tech for engines and airplane itself not ready for a new airplane
- Market for next airplane has got to be big enough to satisfy investors
- NMA was not advanced enough to support its development
- TBW is being worked on but doesn't support a large capacity airplane
- No new airplane till the middle of the 2030s
- Next new airplane won't be based on the NMA's design
- MCAS and COVID were “existential” threats to the company
- China still not taking any MAXes from 2017 onward is a challenge
- 230 MAXes still not delivered, 140 of those were for China
- 90 787s not delivered, will take till end 2024 to deliver both inventories
- China no longer included in future guidance
- C919 is a good airplane but unlikely to hit delivery target of 150/year
- A220-500 doesn’t give him “heartburn”
- Boeing won't recapture a 50/50 market share
- He doesn't feel "disadvantaged" in current airplane competitions
Ref:
https://leehamnews.com/2023/06/01/boein ... w-airplane
Not much news here but all the points made by Calhoun are fair.
As much as the NMA would have served select markets very well. A project like that would have sold in very good numbers as part of a variant in a larger familly. As a standalone product it's success would be a lot more uncertain.
The 757 has still never been replaced by Boeing or by anyone really. The A321xlr has the capacity but lacks the payload.
Technology has come far enough for the 737 and 757s mission profiles to be covered by a single product. This is likely what the 797 will be. However this causes an issue at the smaller end of the scale.
For an aircraft to do this would create a lot of built in weight to the airframe.
This of course would create issues at the lower end of the capacity scale. As it will exacerbate the weight issues that shrinks have.
The MAX 7 has sold 286 frames per wikipedia the vast majority to Southwest. Not numbers but it's hardly a runaway sucess.
This raises the question of whether a 797 would even have a variant in this size category.
Funnily enough a potential solution to this problem is mentioned in this article.
A joint venture with Embraer. It would get Embraer an aircraft capable of meeting the A220 in size.
And it would shiled Boeing from an A220-500 having complete dominance over this segment.
Given the messy ongoing divorce between the two companies this is not likely to happen.
Boeing has the chance to regain it's 50/50 market share but not in this generation.
Of course this will only be possible if this industry stays as duopoly.
Bombardier tried to push into it, they made a brilliant aircraft but poor project management almost killed the company.
The MC-21 was never going to see massive adoption, but it could have at least flown into the western world and who knows maybe a few adhoc charter carriers or the small cargo airlines may have picked up a few frames.
The C919 is a learning curve for China. It won't break the duopoly but it's sucessor might make a dent if it gets the necessary certicifations.
The CR929 if it comes to be will likely be even less sucessful than the C919 if it follows a similar trajectory.
Then there's Embraer. They have the technical skill but neither the funding nor resources to pull of a programme of the magnitude necerssary to disrupt Airbus and Boeing atleast not on their own.
With a partner then it's not impossible.
The biggest threat to Boeing isn't Airbus in my opinion it's Lockheed.
With Airbus being the only real competitor Boeing will survive. Hypothetically. Airbus outsells Boeings narrowbodies 70% to 30% then that's still thousands of frames for Boeing.
However of Lockheed who have the finances and the resources to take on the duopoly then Boeing could be in real trouble.
Airbus has government backing and Europe won't let it fall. Boeing doesn't have such a strong safety net.
This is just for the narrowbody market however. Personally I believe that widebodies including the 777-9 Boeing's in a pretty strong position.
Irrespective of this Boeing needs to time it's products right.